Sixteen Senators Ask DOJ To Investigate Potentially Illegal State Voter Disenfranchisement Laws

[EFerrari]

ThinkProgress

Sixteen Senators Ask DOJ To Investigate Potentially Illegal State Voter Disenfranchisement Laws
By Ian Millhiser on Jul 9, 2011 at 10:00 am

Sixteen senators led by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) submitted a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder last week asking him to examine whether the Voting Rights Act’s prohibitions on laws preventing minorities from voting invalidate so-called “voter ID” laws, which effectively disenfranchise thousands of elderly, disabled, and low-income voters:

We are writing to express our concerns about highly restrictive photo identification requirements under consideration or already signed into law in several states. These measures have the potential to block millions of eligible American voters without addressing any problem commensurate with this kind of restriction on voting rights. Studies have shown that as high as 11% of eligible voters nationwide do not have a government-issued ID. This percentage is higher for seniors, racial minorities, low-income voters and students. Voting is the foundation of our democracy, and we urge you to protect the voting rights of Americans by using the full power of the Department of Justice to review these voter identification laws and scrutinize their implementation.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act vests significant authority in the Department to review laws before they are implemented in covered jurisdictions. As you know, the burden of proof in this preclearance process is on those covered jurisdictions, which must be able to show that legal changes will not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters. <...> The Department should exercise vigilance in overseeing whether these laws are implemented in a way that discriminates against protected classes in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Additionally, federal civil rights law – 42 U.S.C. 1971(a)(2)- prohibits different standards, practices or procedures from being applied to individuals within a jurisdiction. We believe the Department should ensure that these photo identification laws do not violate this statute or other federal voting rights statutes.

It is difficult to see how many of the voter ID laws being pushed in GOP-controlled states could survive scrutiny under the Voting Rights Act, which not only forbids laws that are passed specifically to target minority voters but also strikes down state laws that have a greater impact on minority voters than on others.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/09/264314/sixteen-senators-ask-doj-to-investigate-potentially-illegal-state-voter-disenfranchisement-laws/

[tekisui]

1. knr

[kenny blankenship]

2. They probably have their hands full quashing that appeal in the Siegelman case...

[EFerrari]

4. It's creepy how the corruption of our Supreme Court is just a given now n/t

[mitchtv]

3. good luck

brick wall dead ahead, they;re busy chasing potheads

[EFerrari]

Potheads, peaceniks and the press. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

7. Hey, James Risen isn't going to throw *himself* into Quantico

these are very busy, very high caliber legal people - and you want them to take time out of their scheduled shredding of the 1st Amendment?

[buddysmellgood]

5. The burden of proof is on the pigs. I don't think they can prove it.

the burden of proof in this preclearance process is on those covered jurisdictions, which must be able to show that legal changes will not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters.

[bahrbearian]

6. Is sad they even have to ask.

[EC]

8. Will Holder even bother?

I'm thinking he doesn't think it important since he hasn't started the investigation before this. Or maybe he thinks the State Courts should do it? But most of these states that put in this law have repub courts too, so I hope he gets on the ball on this...he's been terrible so far in most of his work...he doesn't seem to understand what is important and what is not.

[EFerrari]

9. Alternately, he may be betting that the Supreme Court will side with

the vote suppressors.

[chill_wind]

10. K & R. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Holder is too busy prying medicine from the hands of cancer

patients to do much actual work. I mean, voter suppression? Why would a man like Holder care about that?

[indepat]

12. AG Holder will surely be all over this like ugly on an

ape. :patriot: